Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
They're not even worthy of the mocking we give them here.
Click to expand...

As Robby is again banned from DIF, and as his WFS forums are a gaveyard, I suggest that the mocking continues.

Unless, that is, Bobby can provide one simple piece of eveidence that the con he copied has ever actually worked. For anyone. Anywhere. Ever.
 
I intend being the first success story as I have discovered a loophole.

Im going to stop paying my council tax and start sending loads of letters and sporadic phone calls asking irrational and irrelevant questions, when I attend court when they invite(summons) me.

I will point to this
People who are severely mentally impaired
For Council Tax purposes, a person is severely mentally impaired if they have a severe and permanent impairment of intelligence and social functioning. To be eligible for a Council Tax reduction, the person will need a doctor's certificate. This must state they're severely mentally impaired and entitled to one of the following benefits:
Disability Living Allowance care component at the middle or highest rate
Attendance Allowance
Constant Attendance Allowance
Severe Disablement Allowance
Employment and Support Allowance
Incapacity Benefit
Income Support including a disability premium (this includes anyone whose partner has a disability premium for them included in their income-based Jobseeker's Allowance)
the disability element of Working Tax Credit
They may qualify for a Council Tax reduction if, both the following apply, the person:
is over State Pension age
would have been entitled to one of the above benefits if they were under State Pension age
People who are severely mentally impaired are not counted when adding up the number of people in a property. For example, a husband and wife who live together would get the usual discount of 25 per cent. This is the same discount that a single adult living alone would get if they had a severe mental impairment.
No Council Tax is payable on a property occupied solely by people with a severe mental impairment.
Click to expand...
 
jargon buster said:
I intend being the first success story as I have discovered a loophole.

Im going to stop paying my council tax and start sending loads of letters and sporadic phone calls asking irrational and irrelevant questions, when I attend court when they invite(summons) me.

I will point to this
Click to expand...



One slight problem, though. It also says this:


To be eligible for a Council Tax reduction, the person will need a doctor's certificate. This must state they're severely mentally impaired and entitled to one of the following benefits
Click to expand...



As you've now renounced your entitlement to any such benefits, you're therefore not able to fulfill this requirement. So, once again, FoTLerism has actually made it harder for the FoTLers to get out of paying tax! :D
 
The beggar who squats naked on a trash heap can say quite rightly that he is almost a King
 
I suppose one could say it's reached Free Thread On The Land status.
 
flabio said:
So this thread has now been reduced to ridiculous ultimatums and sub standard cliches?


Sad really...
Click to expand...

well if the sock puppet could provide some evidence that Menard's method works that would BE so helpful - but he cannot now can he?

lol

The beggar's friend who squats naked on a trash heap can say quite rightly that he is might know a King
 
Last edited:
Just a thought, but you might have to offer to pay Rob's 'travelling expenses' as we know he has a little problem getting on planes.
 
So this thread has now been reduced to ridiculous ultimatums and sub standard cliches?
Click to expand...
No , an ultimatum was its original purpose.
The thread was started to provide Rob a soapbox to deliver his message to the skeptic world and show them that his methods have validity, TBH I am still at a loss as to why he hasn't taken up that offer.
 
flabio said:
So this thread has now been reduced to ridiculous ultimatums and sub standard cliches?


Sad really...
Click to expand...

Why don't you get the thread back on track by answering the questions you were asked?


deeper said:
Hi, welcome to the forum. :)

Considering how many times Rob has been asked and subsequently failed to produce a shred of evidence to back up any of his claims, I find it hard to see how that could be seen as holding his own. If you know of any evidence to support his claims, if you could state it clearly or link to it that would be great.

I doubt I will be the only one ask this of you. Please don't take it personally, it's how things work here, people make wild claims (such as individual consent is required in order to be governed/ you are exempt from statute law if you follow some secret method, I call it secret because Rob has never stated what the procedure is) and are then asked to back up said claims with hard evidence.
Click to expand...


deeper said:
I have to say, I'm not exactly sure what this has got to do with Freemanism. Is this exclusively a Freeman technique (just contest and they'll drop it) and does it apply to any other offences?

With regard to your personal case, out of curiosity, how fast were you going and on what grounds did you think you were not guilty of speeding? Also, do you now think you can speed with impunity because you know the technique of avoiding prosecution?
Click to expand...
 
FYI Rob, it looks like your status of "on warning" actually means "banned", I speak from experience on that forum, you have been "on warning" for a lot longer than I ever was.
Click to expand...
Update:
It would appear that I was correct, Rob is now showing "banned" on Ickes, what a travesty, surely one of only two* freemen on the land in the world should not be banned from freeman forums, these freeman forum mods must be NWO shills.
Never mind Rob, you still have this forum and my company as long as you like.


* I'm the other one :D
 
flabio said:
So this thread has now been reduced to ridiculous ultimatums and sub standard cliches?


Sad really...
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right - after long months of waiting for actual, verifiable proof that the FMOTL legal arguments work in an actual court in a country with a common law jurisdiction (Canada, US, UK, Ireland, Australia and NZ off the top of my head, there are probably a few more) and the frustration that has happened with the constant responses that can't be verifed we are doing the sub-standard cliches for the lulz.

I would presume that arayder's offer is serious, and will do so until we find out that Bobby accepted prior to Tues at noon, but the offer was not followed through on.

If you'd like to take up the banner of Freemanism from where it has fallen and lead the advance here is what we are looking for wrt the proof:

a. a court case where the FMOTL legal theories worked and resulted in the person positing the theory was found not guilty; or
b. Correspondence from the Government of any Common law jurisdiction indicating that as a result of the person claiming FMOTL status.

Anecedotes are not acceptable. For b. you may (and probably should) remove any reference to personal information of the recipient such as an address.

To recap the primary FMOTL legal theories are:

a. Statute law only applies to you if you consent to the application of same;
b. (Canada only) You may renounce your SIN and it no longer applies to you;
c. Your birth Certificate represents a corporation or an account that you may draw upon if you submit the correct paperwork;
d. Statutes are not real laws.

There are of course others, but (a) is the biggie, as many of the others flow from that one.

Many of the posters on this thread have clearly demonstrated that Canadian and other courts have rejected these arguments on many occasions. Bobby keeps telling us that the examples of "freeman success" are out there, but no one can seem to locate them.

And to you Flabio,
With non-failiing hands,
We throw the torch,
Be yours to hold it high,
If ye break faith with us,
We shall not rest,
though weed shall blow in Rob's hair.

(that didn't come out nearly as well as I'd hoped.)
 
Border Reiver said:
b. (Canada only) You may renounce your SIN and it no longer applies to you;
Click to expand...


I'd add in b.(1) And that, if you do not currently have a SIN, there are no circumstances under which you will be required by law to apply for one.


While it may be usual these days for parents to apply for their kids, so as to make use of certain government programs, it was not always thus. I did not get one until I was a teenager, and got my first job, for instance. Someone my age who has only ever worked under the table might have avoided getting a SIN entirely, but, if they suddenly got a real job, would be required to apply for one.
 
That would be correct, back in the long gone days of the 80s there I was in whatever the name of the office was at the time filling out the form for my SIN so I could get into the Reserves.
 
Border Reiver said:
You're absolutely right - after long months of waiting for actual, verifiable proof that the FMOTL legal arguments work in an actual court in a country with a common law jurisdiction (Canada, US, UK, Ireland, Australia and NZ off the top of my head, there are probably a few more) and the frustration that has happened with the constant responses that can't be verifed we are doing the sub-standard cliches for the lulz.

I would presume that arayder's offer is serious, and will do so until we find out that Bobby accepted prior to Tues at noon, but the offer was not followed through on.

If you'd like to take up the banner of Freemanism from where it has fallen and lead the advance here is what we are looking for wrt the proof:

a. a court case where the FMOTL legal theories worked and resulted in the person positing the theory was found not guilty; or
b. Correspondence from the Government of any Common law jurisdiction indicating that as a result of the person claiming FMOTL status.

Anecedotes are not acceptable. For b. you may (and probably should) remove any reference to personal information of the recipient such as an address.

To recap the primary FMOTL legal theories are:

a. Statute law only applies to you if you consent to the application of same;
b. (Canada only) You may renounce your SIN and it no longer applies to you;
c. Your birth Certificate represents a corporation or an account that you may draw upon if you submit the correct paperwork;
d. Statutes are not real laws.

There are of course others, but (a) is the biggie, as many of the others flow from that one.

Many of the posters on this thread have clearly demonstrated that Canadian and other courts have rejected these arguments on many occasions. Bobby keeps telling us that the examples of "freeman success" are out there, but no one can seem to locate them.

And to you Flabio,
With non-failiing hands,
We throw the torch,
Be yours to hold it high,
If ye break faith with us,
We shall not rest,
though weed shall blow in Rob's hair.

(that didn't come out nearly as well as I'd hoped.)
Click to expand...

Actually had you been paying attention, you would know the primary legal theory, which you completely missed and which all others pretty mush rest upon, is that a claim of right establishes a lawful excuse to disobey the people in the government and courts. That is the king daddy of the theories.

All the rest flow from it. So is there any evidence that has worked? Well yes there is, it was presented here and discussion of that if I recall correctly was abandoned in favour of continually insulting the freemen, with that passing for 'debunking'.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/4561346/Dome-slasher-to-speak-at-spy-base-protest


They were found not guilty by a jury in April last year on charges of burglary and wilful damage.

They successfully used the "claim of right" defence and said they were saving lives in Iraq by disrupting satellite trans-missions and were acting for the greater good.
Click to expand...

Wow look at that! A claim if right defense was successful! In a court no less! In a common law jurisdiction!

That is what you wanted right?
a. a court case where the FMOTL legal theories worked and resulted in the person positing the theory was found not guilty; or
Click to expand...

Big fat not guilty using the foundational freeman tenet. COR is lawful excuse.
But now you will reject it, maybe claim it had nothing to do with freemanery, when it did. Or say 'but that's only one, show us ten more!" or some such other silly stuff.

COR is the foundational freeman legal theory. Always has been even though others who deride the concepts will try to claim otherwise.

And it works in and out of court to establish lawful excuse.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom